Bad times in France, Trump VP, etc, etc, smash the right
I was under the impression that the murdering dickbag in France had no ties to any terrorist organisation. But yeah, it's horrible... I just wish there was something I could do, y'know?
IS has claimed responsibility but they always do so
No really, I'm still blown away by BORIS as FS.
May won't pull the trigger without consensus
Cops have been accosting those who filmed murders committed by cops.
Something appears to be Happening in Turkey:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36809083 - Turkish military blocks Istanbul bridges
//youtube.com/watch?v=W2cRWA18Cco - Jets Flying Low in Turkey - Possible Coup Underway
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-gunfire-reported-ankara-military-8431179 - Gunfire reported in Ankara as military jets seen flying over Turkish capitol
I want to get off of 2016's wild ride...
Further developments: Turkey's PM has denounced an "illegal action" by a military "group"
State television has been taken off the air and domestic internet cut off
According to Reuters the Turkish military has released a stating declaring control of the country - gunfire reported around the Presidential palace
So...yeah, I've just plugged the Patlabor 2 soundtrack into my headphones and shit is going down
One theory going around is that May is keeping the main Brexit lot where she can keep an eye on them (except for Gove, but who gives a shit about that little cunt?). Another suggests that if they fuck up at their new jobs - and let's be honest, for some of them it'll a case of "when" not "if" - then she can go "Welp, guess the guys who wanted Brexit are retards, so much for that idea!" which is certainly an attractive theory... Then again, I'm told that Boris is a genuinely knowledgeable man, and he just puts on that befuddled buffoon act because he knows right-wing voters love that shit.
Have to admit, I think it's a possibility. Scotland and Ireland didn't vote to Leave, and they don't want to get dragged into this shitshow. I hear Wales has a huge case of Bregret, so their Parliament will probably want to get shit done sharpish.
Hmmm... like I said, Scotland and Ireland aren't chugging the Brexit-Aid, so if this is true then they might be able to kill Brexit without causing too much of a ruckus, like letting Parliament exercise their sovreignty might do. It certainly makes the recent bout of crawling from the leader of the Scottish Tories look doubly embarassing.
Well... shit. I remember Turkish cops used tear gas and shit on some peaceful protestors a year or so ago, so I guess this is hardly a novelty. I'm guessing this'll probably scupper their chances of joining the EU... then again, Turkey's got bigger things to worry about now.
If anything it's kind of amazing Erdy's lasted this long. He's bad for Turkey, Turkey's neighbors, and Turkey's allies.
I'd still prefer a democratically elected head of state over a military leadership. For no other reason than because he was still democratically elected. But I concede little sympathy to his side beyond that.
Erdogan is not... exactly a beacon of democracy. He's like a far less confident, Turkish version of Putin.
Due to the colors, in thumbnail that image looked like that was a butt with some sort of symbol in the center. Then I zoomed in and saw that it wasn't a symbol, just a regular asshole.
Looks like that's that. Shame.
Wonder what his game plan is now, this is a great excuse to continue empowering himself.
In a new and shocking turn of events, Muslim Americans face discrimination
Baffling South Korean protests over missile defense system
Explosion @ Royal palace.
We're up to 754 arrests apparently.
I'm somewhat curious as to what the Righty Crew in the other thread are so obsessed with vis a vis Erdogan's fall. He's a nationalistic, tyrannical dictator, he should be right up their alley, and whoever might conceivably replace him is still going to be a Muslim so they'll still have to hate them.
>I'm somewhat curious as to what the Righty Crew in the other thread are so obsessed with vis a vis Erdogan's fall. He's a nationalistic, tyrannical dictator, he should be right up their alley, and whoever might conceivably replace him is still going to be a Muslim so they'll still have to hate them.
Righties are always pleased when there's a chance someone might get brutalized.
I'm still not quite sure why that thread exists, or why it hasn't been deleted yet. I know politics threads haven't been the most civil of places recently, but just having some hugbox for right-wingers isn't helping.
At this point there might as well be two threads since all the previous politics threads have just devolved into shitflinging from both sides.
Yeah actually just separating both parties into their own threads seems to have worked out.
For now. Nothing stopping either party from shitting up the others thread. I think the real reason the other thread is still up is because it isn't literally claiming to be a continuation of the politics threads. I know it's a politics thread, but it doesn't literally say that in it's titile so instead of a competing thread it could be seen as a +/pol/ supplement, with a bigger focus on news articles (as far as I can tell).
Maybe, but it seems an antithesis of the pure democracy of chans to have separate threads for different ideologies... Not that I haven't told people posting the usual MUDSLIME PISSLAM shit on regular /co/ to go back to regular /pol/, but that's because /pol/ was literally created for that kind of posting.
>Maybe, but it seems an antithesis of the pure democracy of chans to have separate threads for different ideologies
I would argue that it's perfectly in line with that. On an image board, you create threads as you please. Mandating everyone be trapped in a thread together is the opposite of that.
Do you really want /baw/ overrun with the kind of threads that /pol/-kun and his ilk would make, though?
Having one thread for each group isn't being overrun. If people start spamming new threads by all means delete away, but right now it isn't hurting anyone.
I have to admit, it is nice not being called an ingrate for not swallowing the bullshit of near-sighted xenophobic sociopaths and David sodding Icke.
Yeah, I was one of the reasons why the last thread went to shit. Sorry about that. I'm just sick of being told that I'm not allowed to complain about my country turning to shit.
Anyway, here's an article:
And of course, the most popular comments are the ones telling him to shut up, as well as a bunch of snide remarks about how he doesn't represent the "real" Britain.
Well, Brexitards will be Brexitards. Interestingly, according to a ResCom poll only 34% voted because they believed the bullshit about migrants - it was more people believing the bullshit about "taking back control".
Things aren't great right now, but there is the possibility that they'll get better... if Brexit gets shelved/defeated in the House of Commons/not ratified by the rest of the UK.
David Davis (the Brexit Secretary, not the footballer) has said that the rest of the UK don't get a say, which I imagine won't go down well in some quarters. I suspect he'll have to retract that little gaffe before the week is out, but I can't say for certain.
That's the thing about this farce; everything's been thrown up in the air, and nothing can be predicted now, except that it's pretty likely that our economy will go downhill, and racist douchebags that insist that everyone else's rights end where their feelings begin.
That's just him pandering to the right-wing tabloids, who love overexaggerating the immigration problem.
Oh this is your new way of bumping your clubhouse after we all left, that's neat.
And how is this thread any better?
We have actual exchanges instead of just spamming /pol/ reposts?
Like, look at the drivel they're posting right now. That's why the threads are separate now, because they just run that 24/7.
Okay so are you just admitting that you're false opposition then
So are you understanding why you don't post in the righty thread yet?
They aren't actually opposition, just a right winger attempting to swing the balanced schism back in their favor.
Damn, I didn't realise there were seven lawsuits. Of course, the fact that there would've been even more if Brexitards stopped threatening people exercising their democratic right comes as no surprise.
Oh, and Angela Eagle's stepped down from the Labour leadership farce, mainly on account of everyone making fun of her.
Only downside to this is that all the GG shits are gonna whine more than ever before.
Erdogan has made it illegal for Turkish academics to travel outside the country until he's decided they were uninvolved with the coup.
British academics are being stripped of their grants by the EU, the Royal society is begging the government not to go through with this.
Stop replying to them. They're not going to ever have a straight on argument with you because they know their shit doesn't reflect reality.
The only way the UK government's going to do the right thing is if they're made to - May's surrounded herself with Brexitards to keep the right-wing papers happy, and the instant anybody says "Hey, maybe this is a stupid idea, could we let Parliament exercise their constitutional right" we get "DEMOCRACY WON WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD STOP COMPLAINING", because fuck free speech and fuck actual democracy.
If these legal challenges don't work, I am torn between emigration or suicide. I wish I was kidding. Don't worry, I'm going to book an appointment with a therapist tomorrow.
So much for uniting the party.
Man this is the weirdest election since the 70s, over the most tumultuous political divisions since the 60s.
Clinton news network with more retweets than likes. Gotta put those twitter bots to work!
>But by upsetting the Republican Party of 2016, Cruz is positioning himself to be the man who saves the party after the year is over. He’s making a bet: that Donald Trump will fail catastrophically in November and the Republican Party’s next leader will be someone who wasn’t implicated in the catastrophe. Ted Cruz wants to be that someone.
I don't know if Cruz will be seen as the GOP's savior in 2017, but the GOP have made it clear they do not have complete faith in Trump beating Hilary. This entire message from this year's GOP has been Hilary Clinton bashing, because there's nothing anyone can say that can make Trump look presidential.
And I've seen people who would otherwise vote Democrat say the only real "vote for Hillary" message they've been hearing from Hillary supporters is "she's not Trump". Weird fuckin' year in politics, right? (God please don't let Trump win we will enter World War V if he's elected.)
Cruz was a Canadian poser that was as just as much a glad handing snake as Clinton. Trump knew what he was going to do and gave him enough to enable his own political collapse at the convention.
Cruz is done for.
As for who's going to win. I've seen ads form Clinton that are hilarious
"Trump swears a lot, do you want your children watching him as President?"
Reason she still doesn't have a Veep pick is she's still focus grouping which would be the optimal choice. Warren another do nothing senator. Or that Castro fella who doesn't speak a lick of Spanish and will need to "Brush Up."
The Resurrection of Colbert isn't going to save anything. Much less his career or his ratings.
We get it, you want to suck the walking toupee's dick.
Clinton's social media team deserve a pat on the back for this stunt.
aaaaand Turkey has suspended the European Convention on Human Rights, FUN
I haven't looked at anything but your pic related, but that in itself is sad.
I mean, if you are quoting half a sentence, at least pretend its the whole quote. This looks openly misleading.
>This looks openly misleading.
It accurately represents his feelings on the matter.
BOY, THAT BREXIT SURE IS GOOD FOR THE UK ECONOMY! IT'S NOT LIKE ANY NEWSPAPERS STILL PRETENDING THAT THIS ISN'T A SHITSHOW DON'T HAVE LINKS TO BREXIT POLITICIANS OR EVEN UKIP ITSELF
“For a man to be successful he needs support at home, just like my father had from my mother. Not someone who is always griping and bitching. When a man has to endure a woman who is not supportive and complains constantly about his not being home enough or not being attentive enough, he will not be very successful unless he is able to cut the cord.”
Post-Brexit rebound sees FTSE setting biggest weekly rise since 2011
FTSE 100 erases post-Brexit losses as buying bonanza fuels rebound
You have your own thread to shit up, go enjoy it.
Fuck off with your dumb echochamber bullshit. Instead of 1 pol thread filled with shit flinging we have 2. Complaining about it now wont change anything. All you are doing is making the lefty pol thread look like pansys that can't handle the same shit these threads have neen making this whole tome. And were are the moderates supposed to post to go? Get bent.
>All you are doing is making the lefty pol thread look like pansys
As a right winger, this should surely please you
Shit's going down in Munich
>The Markit PMIs, which give an early indication of how gross domestic product is likely to perform, suggest the 1.8 trillion pound UK economy is shrinking faster than at any time since the aftermath of the global financial crisis. It showed the services sector - one of the few British growth drivers - has been hit especially hard by Brexit, with orders plunging and confidence crumbling.
>"The only other times we have seen this index fall to these low levels, was the global financial crisis in 2008/9, the bursting of the dot com bubble, and the 1998 Asian financial crisis," Mr Williamson told the BBC.
>"The difference this time is that it is entirely home-grown, which suggest the impact could be greater on the UK economy than before. "This is exactly what most economists were saying would happen."
>A subset of the PMI figures, shows that service companies, such as insurance or advertising, are feeling less positive about the future than at any time since the height of the recession.
I'll let you belive that.
Why would your 'opposition' complain about you belittling yourself?
I'm one of the "opposition" thread people, and this poster >>408432 has never shown a single ounce of basic cognition or even information about the world around them, to the point where they don't even pass the Turing test. Therefore I don't think it's possible for him/her to belittle themselves.
Posters like this don't reflect badly on the rest of you commies, I know you guys can handle banter, and I'm sure you've come across some trailer trash mouthbreather that does the same. Looking forward to meeting on the battlefield of history for the privilege of purging turds like this >>408430 spineless cuck.
Yes /pol/-kun, we know you are upset that everyone stopped paying attention to you after the split, and that upsets you (as does having the spotlight taken from your nice, inflammatory op), but it really doesn't change the fact that you were ditched for a reason. This desperate attempt to cross the streams again is really quite sad.
Turns out the latest asshole who killed people had nothing to do with ISIS, and was most likely a German nationalist who really wanted to shoot lots of people. That makes it much better.
And Muslims are also the perpetrators of 99.7% of terrorism related fatalities. It's almost like there's a problem within their community.
>it's always a dude
>it's not all muslims, a faith they can choose
>but its all guys, something theyre born with
>oceania was always at war with eurasia
>implying more than 0.006% of Muslims worldwide are responsible for terrorism
>implying that there haven't been almost twice as many white terrorists in the USA since 9/11
>implying that the asshole didn't shout out "I am a German" as he was killing people
>implying it's not always a dude
And if you're the guy who made fun of the other Anon for making a Ghostbusters reference, then you should expect to get shit for making a fucking 1984 reference.
>but its all guys, something theyre born with
Yeah pretty much. The female perpetrators of such amount to a rounding error.
>didn't shout out "I am a German" as he was killing people
>implying it's not always a dude
Implying the BLM's Founding Mother isn't a fucking terrorist.
Yep, and yep.
Off the top of my head, I recall (Egypt?) two Muslim women detonated suicide vests with nails in them after shooting at tourists with assault rifles.
Look at this loon thinking the Ghostbusters refake is on the same literary level as 1984!
>implying more than 0.006% of Muslims worldwide are responsible for terrorism
And yet they account for 99.7% of the terrorism, so what percentage of MEN in the world do terrorism? You're basically using the same number of terrorists just dividing by 3.5 billion instead of 1.5 billion. Fucking moron.
>implying that there haven't been almost twice as many white terrorists in the USA since 9/11
Non-Islamic terrorists since 9/11: 24 and 53 dead, from 99.2% of the population.
Islamic terrorists since 9/11: 25 and 120 dead, from 0.8% of the population.
>implying that the asshole didn't shout out "I am a German" as he was killing people
But he wasn't German, he was Iranian. If he said "I'm a hat" would you.... actually you probably would, it's probably a tumblr gender, never mind.
>implying it's not always a dude
A decent percentage of the time it's a woman with a suicide vest or a husband-wife team. Even if the wife didn't directly participate, they often helped prepare them by casing the joint and The only reason men are used more often is because after polygamy matchmaking, there's an extra bit of men left over that can either be permavirgin, rapists, goat fuckers, or an exploding candygram.
>But he wasn't German, he was Iranian.
He was born and raised in Munich.
The fuck does this even mean?
They're mad about the women. But also strangely decided to make the remake connection themselves even though all that was ever mentioned was the basic stream crossing bit.
It's kind of hilarious that the right is currently trying to make "Hillary is backed by the DNC" into a scandal when their pet warthog is backed by Vladimir Putin.
>post yfw Brexitards didn't check to see if Article 50 had a "No backsies" clause
Yeah you're right, sorry, the 80s ghostbusters is way more memorable than this new piece of trash. Should have assumed you were talking about the original.
protip: when people say german they dont mean a resident of a country. by that retarded logic gypsies and kurds dont even exist, because they dont have a country.
Yes, you are a racist, we've covered this.
Yes, you want to genocide gypsies, I think that's clear.
I love that, in attempting to use them as your shield, you still call them "gypsies."
This is the most retarded tactic you've taken yet.
News, not politics, but it's not like you guys talk about politics most of the time anyway.
Chris-Chan got a taint piercing a while ago, but his shit hygiene resulted in an open wound that didn't heal. He believes this is a vagina that resulted from watching hypno videos. There are pictures, unfortunately.
Wiki article with no visible pictures (hidden gallery at the bottom with warnings):
That's what they call themselves, what the fuck?
>It's kind of hilarious that the right is currently trying to make "Hillary is backed by the DNC" into a scandal when their pet warthog is backed by Vladimir Putin.
Thanks for letting us see what brainwashing looks like in real time.
Because it's not all of Sanders supporters that are pissed that the party conspired against their candidate. Gonna be a fun convention with Sanders 1000 odd Delegates getting vocal.
DNC is getting BTFO on multiple levels.
There are more revaluations coming.
Guccifer 2.0* just fed Wikileaks a line into some shady double dealing Hillary has been doing.
Pre-release rumor is that she created parallel structures in government (2nd embassies, 2nd state departments) with which she engaged in criminal behavior across the world, specifically aiding Al Qaeda.
If so, this opens her to charges of treason, and with a republican congress in charge of treason punishments....
Her only hope is to become president and executive order the classification of every piece of information that could convict her, like Obama did for Holder during Fast and Furious.
*Not Russian, Guccifer 2.0 is likely a east european who immigrated to one of the Western European countries during the 90s, so likely a Balkanite or Polish. Guccifer 1.0 was also not Russian but Romanian. The DNC (and probably RNC) did get hacked by Russian hack groups Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear several years previous, but they aren't the ones releasing info.
Goddamn, it's actually pretty hard NOT to think of her as crooked when she very clearly is.
She is a politician, not a populist oaf, so it's understandable that your sort wouldn't like her.
>She is a politician
She certainly is.
And thus, the only qualified candidate.
Highly qualified when it comes to corruption, embezzlement, cronyism, theft...
No no we're not talking about Trump right now, you've gotten confused again.
>he has worked for three Republican presidential hopefuls — Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Marco Rubio
3x failure lol
>Republican Party is going to die
This after the DNC got every speaker booed off stage and had giant metal walls installed to stop crowds from tearing the people on stage apart.
That's not actually a counterpoint, you realize. In fact it isn't engaging the points of the article at all.
It's also not true but debate form today, honesty tomorrow, one lesson at a time.
Trump is a mysterious creature
>when their pet warthog is backed by Vladimir Putin.
HE CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT!!!!!!
I mean, if you're still on the Trump train at this point you're probably not getting off, but outright asking a hostile foreign power to hack a prominent domestic political figure is pretty incredible even by his standards.
Irregularities in the Democratic primary contributed to "an estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders" — he was 180 short of a majority.
Since when is Russia a hostile foreign power? Islamic terrorists are the only hostile foreign power attacking america, and your pet politician is the one wanting to aid them.
Trump isn't a perfect solution, in fact he's a shit solution, but the Democratic party has destroyed the only superior alternative.
Incredible yes but ultimately meaningless. As much as the Right hates Russia, they hate gays, transexuals, racial and religious minorities, and Democrats both social and not even more. They'll vote for their clown man and it's our responsibility to shut them out and vote against him.
Well yeah, we've officially folded up the primaries, so it's time for everyone to go to their corners, form the coalitions, and really fucking lay into each other until November. Then, for better or worse, we'll be free of this nonsense for awhile.
>No they don't.
How else do you explain the fact that the conservative base has overwhelmingly gone behind a candidate who is less conservative, but far more in favor of white nationalism, than pretty much anyone else who ran against him in the primaries?
He was the only candidate talking about conservative values, reducing the size/scope of government, reducing taxation, taking care of the economy etc... Every other candidate wanted to expand taxation, export businesses, attack countries overseas, and expand government power.
They will never admit it no matter how many times you engage them so just ignore them and talk about actual news.
Speaking of which, they've identified a new ALS contribution gene!
This is a political video
This is a much better one.
They think it's white nationalism to want to curtail modern day slavery, such as unregulated immigration or exporting labor to sweatshops in Burma. At least that's what George Soros and Goldman Sachs tells them to think.
I got to hand it to these rich fucks though, they managed to bring back slavery by labeling all opponents as nationalists. Can you imagine in 1650 the concern being "wait maybe we shouldnt enslave africans" and some rich fuck with a boat replying to the concern with "GASP! you just want the colonies remain white, you racist!"
Back in the UK political scene, Corbyn is definitely allowed to stand for the Labour Party leadership challenge, and he's the bookies' favourite to win.
In b4 "B-b-but he's destroying the party!" - the couple of Labour politicians making up shit like "He sent an aide to break into my office!" when it turned out it was just somebody who was given a key, and was just making sure everything was tidy... those arseholes are destroying Labour.
Also, requisite anti-Brexit image, because holy shit is this whole thing retarded.
>Speaking of which, they've identified a new ALS contribution gene!
Good to know that bucket idiocy actually helped I guess.
>B-b-but he's destroying the party!
But he is?
I don't agree with everything he says, but tens of thousands have joined Labour in the past month, and that was after the vote of no confidence.
I dunno, it's just kind of refereshing to have a British politician who doesn't run away as soon as the going gets tough.
>after the vote of no confidence
Which if he really held to principles, he would have obeyed, it's the least he could do after actively sabotaging Remain because he wants Britain to return to the fucking 70's
It's entirely because of his leadership that, when the Conservatives fucked up so royally they tanked the pound and had to surrender a Minister, that Labour's response was to implode completely
>actively sabotaging Remain
do you have a single fact to back that up.
Don't do this playing dumb thing , that's /pol/-kun shit. His office has been leaking information and employees for a month, his position is a matter of public record.
Not to mention that besides the documents and emails of the current conflict, Corbyn was an opponent of joining in the first place. He's NEVER been trustworthy and that he achieved leadership at all was a disaster.
You just like him because he looks like John Oliver.
You mean the guy copying all of Corbyn's policies whilst calling Corbyn a "dangerous radical" at the same time?
Unlike Corbyn, Smith can actually keep his mouth shut on occasion and act like a practical politician, something Corbyn has never learned and will never learn how to do.
Is that honestly the only criticism you can level at corbyn? At least we know he has a spine and can stand up to a bunch of bitchy douchebags trying to destroy his party. Does Smith have a spine? I think not.
>Is that honestly the only criticism you can level at corbyn?
Inability to fight the conservatives and keep the party unified is a pretty good criticism to have of the labor leader imo
Does your analysis still stand considering the Clinton Foundation received millions in funding from Russia?
Shit's going down in Armenia
China holds Japanese man for endangering national security-media, just ignore the anti-Hillary troll.
Brazil stuff going down.
This is really nice.
How about we make this thread for world news and other thread for US politics?
Because one left/center thread and one right thread has minimalized the horseshit and returning to that full time is in the interest of nobody save the trolls.
>save the trolls
you mean "people who disagree with me"?
Despite the thread's nature, there are next-to-no trolls in any +4 threads. /pco/ has more trolls than these threads.
>you mean "people who disagree with me"?
Always the refrain of trolls. "Just because I said that jews and black people should be killed and their bodies used to make diamonds for rich people to wear doesn't mean I'm a troll! You just can't handle disagreement!"
Don't even respond to him man, he just wants the attention.
Honest question: why the fuck did you respond?
>"Just because I said that jews and black people should be killed and their bodies used to make diamonds for rich people to wear doesn't mean I'm a troll! You just can't handle disagreement!"
If you can't greentext someone who actually said this, you're a giant gaping asshole of a troll.
> “He’s not going into Ukraine, O.K., just so you understand,” Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee, said when the issue came up. “He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want.”
>“Well, he’s already there, isn’t he?” Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted.
>“O.K., well, he’s there in a certain way,” Mr. Trump replied. “But I’m not there. You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama with all the strength that you’re talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this. In the meantime, he’s going away. He take — takes Crimea.”
A wild Trump, here seen attempting to imitate Man Speech
Hillary directly funded ISIS
>image does not support claim
I don't support the lying bitch, but you are also a lying bitch.
Hillary funded ISIS through a shell company doesn't have the right ring to it.
Obama: "The obvious."
A member of The House of Lords have said the House would probably do everything they can to block Brexit, or at least delay it. Queue thousands of Brexitards calling part of their constitutional democracy "undemocratic" and not realising that "I want" gets nothing...
Good riddance, Khan is using his dead son for political capital.
Also I love how Trump saying Khan is wrong is somehow "disrespecting a dead hero" but Hillary Clinton literally putting weapons in the hands of the people who killed that dead hero is totally ok.
an admirable sentiment on their part but the Lords can't actually do that
of course the Commons aren't going to make it necessary for them to but still, it's always better if the Lords as a body just don't say anything
The Right unraveling as they try to keep Trump propped up is apparently only going to get more and more hilarious as we near the end of this madness https://twitter.com/ToddDracula/status/759765030539784193
I mean, hey, it’s not as if Trump disrespected actual dead/wounded American soldiers by joking about how he always wanted a Purple Heart Medal.
So, a trump spokeswoman just got up on national television and stated that khan wouldn't have died if not for the changes to the rules of engagement instituted by president obama
Humayen khan: 1976-2004
I mean, hey, it's not as if Hillary didn't create situations where American soldiers BECAME dead/wounded.
As Commander in Chief of the military, it goes without saying that sometimes a course chosen by the President is going to result in deaths that would not have happen if they had chosen a different course. Part of the question one should be asking themselves when choosing a President is whether or not the person they're electing can be trusted to make those deaths meaningful when they must happen.
People are going to die because of orders President Hillary gives, or people are going to die because of orders President Trump gives. Both are too hawkish for my tastes, and I suspect more people will die because of both their actions than would die if we had a ficus for our President. That being said, I at least expect the people who die because of Hillary's decisions will be serving a useful purpose--whereas I think Trump will gladly sacrifice our troops just because a foreign leader said his penis was small.
And part of the job of the commander in chief is not to give aid and comfort to the enemy, not to fund the enemy, not to arm the enemy...
>I at least expect the people who die because of Hillary's decisions will be serving a useful purpose
Sure, the useful purpose of lining her pocket.
>Sure, the useful purpose of lining her pocket.
I take it you believe Trump's wars will be altruistic in nature?
Hillary alone didn’t cause the Iraq War to happen, nor did she alone cause the US military to become involved in Afghanistan and Syria and whatnot. Does she have a “warhawk” streak? Sure. But let’s not act as if it was her vote, her decisions, that were the sole cause of the military actions she approved of the government carrying out.
And if you want to jump all over Hillary’s vote in favor of the Iraq War, I hope I don’t have to remind you that plenty of people on both sides of the aisle voted for the war based on the lies of The Cheney Administration (feat. President George W. Bush). That doesn’t excuse her vote, but it doesn’t make her vote the sole factor for the Iraq War.
Hillary Clinton has already proven that she'll compromise her vaguely left-of-center political stances and lean more towards the left—that she’ll listen to “actual progressives” if they’re loud enough and make good points. She might reconsider taking exhaustive military action in the Middle East (and elsewhere) if it could destroy her approval ratings or prevent her from getting any of her policies passed through Congress. (Moreso if Democrats get more places in Congress this time around. Downticket voting is important, people!) I'll take a President willing to step away from her own political beliefs and work towards a compromise than one who will just do whatever the hell comes to mind without considering the short- and long-term effects/the narrow- and wide-scope ramifications of those decisions.
She isn't a perfect candidate, but no one ever is. And right now, Hillary Clinton is only the POTUS candidate with an actual chance of winning who I would consider qualified to sit in the Oval Office come 2017. I don’t expect that opinion to change between now and November.
Rand, Trump, O’Malley and Bernie are the only candidates out of all the Republican and Democrat candidates that don't want war, the only candidates that oppose escalation in Syria, the only candidates that don't want to start WWIII with Russia.
She was among the primary backers for the Iraq and Afghanistan invasion in congress. As Secretary of State she backed McCrystals troop expansion in Afghanistan, was for military involvement in the Arab Spring, such as the disastrous situation in Libya, and the funneling of weapons to terrorists such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. After stepping down as Secretary of State over Benghazi incident where the stupid bitch failed at the one job of a Secretary of State (keeping ambassadors alive) she started attacking Obama for not taking a harder stance in Syria, where we would be in direct opposition to the only other major nuclear power.
What the hell makes you think she's an "imperfect" candidate? The only thing she's qualified at is creating catastrophes. I double dog dare you to tell me of something profoundly good she accomplished, or of a situation in which she acted with reason and responsibility.
Good point. Stilll, seeing Brexitards their true nature is always... enlightening.
That reminds me, I need to finish that letter to my local MP I started writing a few days ago. He's usually a bit of a toadying Tory loafer, but I can at least give it a shot.
>The only thing she's qualified at is creating catastrophes.
At least she doesn’t want to drop nukes as soon as she gets into office.
Just drone bombs, which is better than nukes in the same way that the Herp is better than AIDS.
Given the choice we have to make at the ballot come November, I’ll take drones over nukes. I don’t have to agree with everything Hillary says, does, thinks, and believes in order to vote for her.
That's actually not a bad comparison at all--Herpes is not a particularly concerning illness (some itching and occasional sores, and most people who have it never even show symptoms), and AIDS is a life-threatening autoimmune disorder. Nukes leave fallout that lasts for generations and causes geiger counters on the other side of the planet to go off and do more to harm civilians than military targets, while drone bombs--for all they're not pleasant from a pacifistic point of view--are surgical strikes against small targets that have comparatively little collateral damage.
Assuming the drone strikes actually hit the targets instead of civilians misidentified as targets. If anything, drone strikes should receive heightened consideration in terms of whether we use them—not “nuclear holocaust” levels of consideration, but greater consideration that “drop the bomb there and fly it back in”.
Clinton would be more likely to grant that consideration.
Which is fair, but surely you can understand why, when faced with "give everyone in America herpes" or "give everyone in America AIDS," some people decide they don't really want to pull that lever in either direction.
Yes, but those are the choices, and abstaining is basically the same as going along with whatever choice wins. (I know there are “other choices”, but those choices stand no real chance of winning.) I’d rather vote for the politician who can potentially be swayed into avoiding exhaustive military action than the businessman who thinks he can drop a nuke without changing the entire world.
And yes, dropping a nuke will have more effects than the destruction and immediate nuclear fallout of the bomb itself. The threat of a global thermonuclear war—of mutually-assured nuclear annihilation—is what keeps countries with nukes from using them. The nuclear deterrent works precisely because we don’t use the nukes. If this country drops another one, we will change the geopolitical landscape for good, and a President not willing to consider all the ramifications of Pressing The Button is a President who doesn’t deserve to hold the office.
>At least she doesn’t want to drop nukes as soon as she gets into office.
Yes she does, Hillary wants to nuke people more than Trump, are you reading any part of my posts?
Fucking Trump is the anti war candidate compared to Hillary.
Realtalk, as much as Hillary is the sane option, engaging poke and his right wing friends on nuclear politics of all things is utter nonsense because even the only person theoretically dumb enough to launch a nuke, Trump, still isn't going to. Nukes are not military weapons, they're political ones. Even at the craziest highs of the Cold War neither government ever really intended to use them. Hell, fucking North Korea isn't going to use them.
If you're going to stupidly encourage the Right to post here at least only engage their arguments with at minimum VAGUE connections to reality.
>lets stop talking about nukes now that ive realized hilary is by far the more likely option to start a thermonuclear war with russia
There isn't going to be a thermonuclear war with anyone regardless of who is elected. It's literally not an issue on the table.
There were several times strategic nuclear use has been contemplated; when the French were losing at Dien Ben Phu, the U.S. contemplated using nukes to bail them out (Operation Vulture). The risk, of course, is a strategic use escalating into strategic.near-misses during the Cold War; a simple googling yields several (including a 1979 NORAD computer glitch). We (the U.S.) even had one of our bombs fall on own selves (North Carolina, 1961). Only (imho) the sheer power of providence has prevented nuclear weapons being used.
Seeing that our options now are neoliberal imperialist or populist fascist, odds are better than they've been in decades we'll see WWIII.
Republican Party asks Trump to stop flailing his arms around randomly and actually conduct a campaign even as he starts hemorrhaging actual supporters
The Supreme Court flounders on human rights, still in need of Obama's constitutionally given right to appoint justices
Trump thrilled as his BFF murders more Ukranians
Hillary Clinton already broke the Democratic party.
The Supreme Court doesn't make laws.
Hillarys BFFs currently slaughtering hundreds of thousands in the middle east.
The funny thing is that, while Trump and his followers crow about the idea of dropping nukes on terrorists, nukes are actually pretty much obsolete at this point. They are not as good at destroying things or inciting terror in the enemy as a MOAB or similar conventional weaponry, and they are much more likely to have negative effects on everyone, including disinterested third parties and the people who use them.
The only purpose nuclear weapons serve at this point is as points in an international dick-measuring contest.
We're crowing about the idea of dropping nukes on Russia, not terrorists. Because Russia can nuke us back, and annihilate human civilization.
Good thing nobody wants to do that then.
Corbyn's unrepentant attitude is really making the Loonies sound appealing
Probably because he has nothing to repent for.
His sabotage, his failure , his division of the party...
I might as well just vote for the Loonies, or even the LDs, it's not like Labor is ever losing Manchester.
That's funny. You know what excuse Stalin used when something failed?
Sabotage. Sabotage by intellectuals, sabotage by counterrevolutionaries.
It's just funny seeing that specific excuse alive.
It's you Corbyn worshipers going around accusing everyone of being Blairites and "rebelling"
Even news network chyron is fucking done with 2016.
Should implies he's asking Japan to get nukes. The actual quotes on the subject:
Also media outright lying in other ways, for example:
Clinton did start the talks with Iran as Secretary of State, and she pushed for a nuclear Iran.
Trump said he watched the plane with hostages, not the plane with the cash, another lie.
>Host: Should Trump apologize?
>Eric: This should be a question for him, but I think he has by calling him a hero.
tl;dr It's Erics opinion that calling their son a hero is enough of an apology, he didn't say Trump has apologized.
The fact that you can sit there and spam these lies tells us something about you.
1983 was a long while back, and people’s opinions and stances can change over time. Also, I’m not seeing where he said “American law must kowtow to the Shariah”. Also,
Second line of that quote. And you saw it, otherwise you wouldn't spend the first sentence trying to excuse it. Scumbag.
>Second line of that quote.
The one referring to Islamic jurisprudence schools, as opposed to strictly secular law?
"All other judicial works must always be subordinated to Sharia"
The constitution is "all other judicial works".
Just thought of something.
Let’s say he does believe the Sharia should be held above all secular law. So what? How does holding that belief, on its own, hurt anyone or do anything to put Sharia law above secular law? If he holds that “Sharia is the one true law” belief, what the hell has he ever done to further it? What actions has he taken to place Sharia law above American law and “undermine” the Constitution?
Having a political or religious opinion that could be deemed “radical” is not, on its own, an overt act of terrorism or “an attempt to destroy America” or whatever you want to call it. I mean, shit, there are Objectivists in this country, and I don’t see calls for them to get kicked out and barred from re-entering.
Khan started a journal called Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law in which he continuously defends Islamic law (sharia).
Let's just say that hypothetically Trump is really Mechanazi, a cybernetically immortal corpse of Adolf Hitler, who believes minorities are subhuman. How does holding that belief, on its own, hurt anyone?
You guys haven't even proven Trump is racist yet you're attacking him on that "belief" (he doesnt hold) since Day 0 of his campaign, and yet you balk at applying the same WITH EVIDENCE to Khan even though Sharia is 1000x times worse than simple racism.
By the way I bet hit hurts Khans wife every time he beats her with a stick no thicker than his thumb.
In the future
>Just thought of something.
We don't need to hear every brain fart.
>Khan started a journal called Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law in which he continuously defends Islamic law (sharia).
I didn’t realize that was against the law for him to do.
>Let's just say that hypothetically Trump is really Mechanazi, a cybernetically immortal corpse of Adolf Hitler, who believes minorities are subhuman. How does holding that belief, on its own, hurt anyone?
It doesn’t. Him acting on those beliefs—whether than means trying to push them into law or using them as post-hoc justification for acts of violence against ethnic minorities—would be harmful to others.
>You guys haven't even proven Trump is racist yet
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4r2yxs/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is/ — It’s a bit of a Gish Gallop, yes, but it’s still a hell of a resource.
>you balk at applying the same WITH EVIDENCE to Khan
Khan started a law journal. He didn’t run for Congress or governor so he could put Sharia law on the books, nor has he ever committed an overt act of terroristic violence to influence lawmakers into putting Sharia law on the books. Whatever you think of his opinions, they’re his opinions, not an overt act in and of themselves—and he’s free to hold those opinions, regardless of whether you agree with them.
>By the way I bet hit hurts Khans wife every time he beats her with a stick no thicker than his thumb.
Feel free to offer the incontrovertible proof that he beats his wife. Got an arrest record or post-beating photos to share?
>is not, on its own, an overt act of terrorism
Seven 9/11 hijackers had recent Virginia passports, and ISIL still get captured with Virginia passports in fucking Kurdistan. Khan bases his legal practice in Virginia, a practice concerned exclusively with gaming US immigration system to get unqualified people American passports.
By the way he's not a lawyer, he's not a member of the bar, he's just a legal consultant. His legal credentials lie purely with Sharia law.
>Khan bases his legal practice in Virginia, a practice concerned exclusively with gaming US immigration system to get unqualified people American passports.
What proof do you have that Khan supplies terrorists with passports? If you’re gonna pull the “terrorists have passports from where he works” line out and imply that he’s helping terrorists, surely you have some sort of evidence to back up the implication.
>he's not a lawyer, he's not a member of the bar, he's just a legal consultant.
>His legal credentials lie purely with Sharia law.
Last I checked, he’s not trying to replace American law with Sharia law. If you have proof to the contrary, I’d love to see it.
>What proof do you have that Khan supplies terrorists with passports? If you’re gonna pull the “terrorists have passports from where he works” line out and imply that he’s helping terrorists, surely you have some sort of evidence to back up the implication.
Well you see, the browns
>What proof do you have that Khan supplies terrorists with passports?
Hey I didn't say it, you did.
Let’s see what was said in >>408752 again: Seven 9/11 hijackers had recent Virginia passports, and ISIL still get captured with Virginia passports in fucking Kurdistan. Khan bases his legal practice in Virginia, a practice concerned exclusively with gaming US immigration system to get unqualified people American passports.
You didn’t have to say it; you implied it with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. So if you have any evidence to back up your implication that Khan is a knowing, witting accomplice to terrorists—that Khan himself is a terrorist—you might want to share it with us. If you don’t, maybe stop implying that he’s a terrorist (or a willing accomplice to known terrorists)…and maybe stop using other people calling out your implication as some form of a rhetorical trap, too.
You yourself came to this conclusion given that information, meaning the information provided was enough evidence for you to make the conclusion. Whether a jury would is up to them... but you did.
I didn’t come to any “conclusion”. I pointed out the implication of those statements. You haven’t shown me any evidence that backs up those implications and gives me a reason to “conclude” that Khan is either a terrorist or an accomplice to terrorists. My conclusion of those statements is this: You implied a link between Khan and terrorists, counted on my emotions getting so riled up by the mentions of 9/11 and ISIS that I would get on your side and think Khan is a terrorist, and resorted to rhetorical trickery (“you said it, I didn’t”; “you came to this conclusion”) when I didn’t immediately side with you.
I think Khan is not a terrorist and that he has not explictly helped terrorists. I say “think” because I’m more than willing to admit my opinion is wrong—if you can show me incontrovertible evidence from credible sources that proves otherwise. If you can’t, you’d do well to stop saying “Freehaven thinks Khan is a terrorist”. (Corollary to that last sentence: You’d do well to not repeat that bit I put in quotes as if it’s my actual belief/conclusion/opinion. Quote mining doesn’t win arguments.)
He's gotten in trouble for deleting "troll" posts in /pol/ threads before. That's why I stopped even posting news here. These threads aren't about talking about the news with other people with different opinions, they are just cesspits for the lowest of the low on either side to throw shit at each other undisturbed. I don't know how anyone could find it an entertaining way to spend their time.
I find it amusing to watch the two extremes make each other miserable, but I'm not participating either.
>You implied a link between Khan and terrorists
I merely pointed out a pure coincidence, you're the one inferring a link.
In fact I'm positively certain that it was some other Islamic lawyer in Virginia specializing in gaming the US immigration policy who gave US documents to all those terrorists.
>if you can show me incontrovertible evidence
If you ever find incontrovertible evidence of a crime I suggest you contact the FBI instead of posting about it online.
I'm the different opinion you wanted, and you'll notice I'm not insulting either of you by calling you trolls or the lowest of the low.
My ancestors are smiling on me, can you say the same?
>I'm the different opinion you wanted, and you'll notice I'm not insulting either of you by calling you trolls or the lowest of the low.
Unless of course either of them happen to not be straight white men, or they are straight white men that don't adhere to your barbarism, in which case that's exactly what you're doing
Considering that, as a Virginian , my ancestors are primarily defined by industrialized agricultural slave labor and high treason, I don't much care for their approval
>I merely pointed out a pure coincidence, you're the one inferring a link.
"Huh. ISIS has Virginia-stamped passports, and this Muslim guy who does work involving passports works out of Virginia. Odd. Oh well nothing to see here move along people!” That’s what you think you did. But it isn’t. You meant to infer a link between terrorists and Khan; if your intention was to do otherwise, you wouldn’t have brought up that coincidence and mentioned Khan by name. And that “it was some other lawyer” excuse is backtracking on your original insinuation with an attempt at rhetorical trickery—“You’re the one who inferred that I was talking about Khan, even though I meant some other lawyer! Just because I mentioned Khan doesn’t mean I was talking about him!”—meant to make me look like a shithead. (I promise, you don’t need to help me with that.)
>If you ever find incontrovertible evidence of a crime I suggest you contact the FBI instead of posting about it online.
And that is my point, in a sense: If you had evidence of any crimes committed by Khan, you’d be able to point to it because he’d be under arrest or in a prison (secret or otherwise). But you can’t. Because he isn’t. Your implication that he is a terrorist—and it is your underlying implication, despite all the rhetorical trickery you’ve pulled to try blaming it on me—is a load of bullshit. (And it’s probably driven by hatred for either Muslims or people of Middle Eastern descent.)
>I'm the different opinion you wanted
You're an uninformed opinion, at best.
>My ancestors are smiling on me
Your ancestors are all dead and buried.
>to not be straight white men
Dude what the hell? I'm not gay, and even if I was gay, why would I have a fetish for straight guys?
You just have this entire personal history about me written in your head which makes no fucking sense, where are you getting these ideas from...
I like straight women, any race. Or lesbian women if I can watch.
Missed this part
>In fact I'm positively certain that it was some other Islamic lawyer in Virginia specializing in gaming the US immigration policy who gave US documents to all those terrorists.
>Your ancestors are all dead and buried.
Yeah that's kind of the point isn't it.
Quoting >>408752 again: Seven 9/11 hijackers had recent Virginia passports, and ISIL still get captured with Virginia passports in fucking Kurdistan. Khan bases his legal practice in Virginia, a practice concerned exclusively with gaming US immigration system to get unqualified people American passports.
So no, I didn’t “miss that part”. The original statements didn’t mention other lawyers or other Muslims; they flat-out named Khan. That “it was some other Islamic lawyer” statement was an attempt to backtrack the original statements (and their “Khan is a terrorist” implication) by making it seem as if I accused Khan of being a terrorist. You’re trying way too hard to pin that implication on me when >>408752 (which was not my post) heavily implied on its own that Khan helped get passports to either the 9/11 hijackers, ISIS, or both.
Hey man, just letting you know you're probably not helping your case by being gross about lesbians.
It's too late for you to pretend to care about women or LGBT individuals.
You're quite stubborn for a liberal.
I am an LGBT individual, white boy, try again.
Not that guy, but wow. I wouldn't have guessed it. The more you know.
Judging by the way you frequent the fitness/health threads, I'm guessing G?
>tfw my old spotter who always stood way too close on bench press came out as bi later that year
>This is the legacy of protest votes: None of the proposed theories of change change anything.
Not going to apologize for what my dick finds sexy. Obviously I'm not going to watch lesbians without their consent... so I don't see the problem.
He's not really liberal, he just pretends it. His religion is progressivism.
Let me guess without reading, it's trying to prevent people disillusioned by leaks from leaving DNC in droves and going independent.
>or is that a fun exercise that only i get to do
You've never denounced a right winger so I don't know what you could possibly be upset about here.
Poke you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are: dishonest, sexist, racist, attack semantics over substance, and in basically every way just act from the generic alt-right playbook short of outright reposting from the current /pol/ photoshop shortlist. You have no cause to complain when people accuse you of lying because you've been repeatedly caught doing exactly that, and doing so in the service of disgusting causes. There's a reason you were chased out of these threads in the first place.
Interesting, I wonder if you could point me to a single example of that.
Also, I actually did at Freehaven's constant badgering, ask him yourself.
You can also ask him if I'm being honest here, I've publicly cashed in all my Oppression Bucks before, which I'm assuming he remembers seeing as he didn't also jump on your little 1-man dogpile attempt.
Nobody us going to dig through years of these horseshit threads to cite shit. If you're just going to half-heartedly gesture at stone then I'll meet you on that point, as he can remember easily all the times when you refused to actually engage points and instead dodged questions and attacked via semantics.
Your attempts to paint yourself as neutral will never be allowed poke, you blew all your chances for that.
The funny thing is i can actually remember exactly one time i "refused to engage a point," and while i did have the intention to, i simply never got around to it because it would be a very long post and take me quite a while and all I'd get is an "lol" in response, and i was very tired of that game, so i just didn't bother posting on that topic any more.
The funny part being that i can say with 100% certainty that you don't even remember the time I'm thinking of, since like i said, i didn't "dodge questions," i just stopped partying until the subject changed--plus it was like a year ago.
Oh well, so long as YOU believe you did nothing wrong.
Like i said, ask Freehaven. His past posts seem to indicate a memory around as good as my own.
Yeah, I’m not getting in the middle of this little slapfight.
So to clarify, you are not denouncing the people on your side who harass LGBT people and call said people Fake Gays when confronted with their own actions?
>Your attempts to paint yourself as neutral will never be allowed poke, you blew all your chances for that.
Wait... retard do you think YOU'RE neutral?
>implying you aren't supporting your retarded cousin
Stone outright deleted a gay guys posts and even called the admin to get involved in repression. Stone and his butt buddy are total regressives.
He prefers the term “anatomical acquaintance”, thank you very much.
>Stone and his butt buddy
Did you just call Moose the butt buddy of Freehaven?
Stone, I know that you know that this is wrong, and I find it very cowardly of you that you won't even admit it, especially since you're watching it unfold live, while you held me accountable for actions that I never even saw.
I've thought about it for a bit and that's my best shot at saying what I have to say in a non-hostile way. Please reflect on yourself.
Everyone in this slapfight is being an asshole. All y’all need to step the fuck back, take a few deep breaths, and maybe go play AM2R for a while.
I...suppose that's as good as I could expect.
For what it's worth, as much distaste for you on a personal level as I have, I do think you're a fundamentally good person, which is why it frustrates me so much when you see someone's friend's suicide being thrown in their face, someone's identity being denied for the purpose of justifying bullying directed at them, and you choose to ignore it, either out of your dislike for me, or your fear of losing your allies if you address their appalling behavior.
If I were some rando on Tumblr and you saw this going down, I know you wouldn't stand for it, which is why I get angry at you when you abide it here, even when directly asked about it.
I don't like you Freehaven, I think you're cowardly and either blinded by or ruled by your own bias, but I do think your heart's in the right place, and respect you to a certain degree, and so I hold you to a higher standard than Anon "Literally Kill Yourself" Ymous. Like I said, do try and reflect on yourself.
Would have sent you all of this privately, but uh, I'd prefer to keep personal accounts away from anyone still on +4, for obvious reasons. No offense.
…you take a shitty politics thread on a barely-trafficked 4chan clone way too seriously. Yes, it’s awful that anons here treat you like shit, and if I weren’t, y’know, an active participant in the thread, I’d do something about it. But the best I can do in this situation is asking everyone to stop being such fucking assholes. I mean, I got smacked down hard the last time I tried to play peacekeeper with my janitorial powers, so I don't know what else you want me to do other than say, “Y’all are being assholes.” Seriously, Slowpoke, I don't have any real power or authority or whatever over anyone here so I can't just, y’know, flick my wrist and make them all behave however you or I want them to, so, uh, I don’t know what you expect my calling those people out at length to do other than open me up to mockery, since I don’t really have much credibility or respect left around here, so…yeah, uh, everyone’s being an asshole, I hope they stop it and all, but I don’t know what else to do that isn’t nuking posts like I was warned against doing, and you’re not really giving me much of a choice in what to do here, so maybe, uh, maybe get back to me on that, okay?
Yeah, I'm exhausted and oversharing, it's been a very busy weekend. I don't think I'm taking the thread seriously though, just your behavior, as you're someone I've at least associated with for...8? years now. Maybe 9. Nearly a decade.
My point was that you repeatedly demanded that I publicly speak out against the "bad people" on "my side," which accomplished nothing but what, virtue signaling? But when it comes time to actually defend someone from abusers on "your side," you just say you're not getting involved but still crack jokes. That's the tl;dr.
Well what the fuck do you expect me to do, snap my fingers and make everyone not be an asshole? I can call people out for that shit, but it’s not going to do anything because nobody listens to me. That whole thing about credibility and respect? I don’t have those! Nobody takes me seriously! Shit, I don’t even take me seriously half the time! And why do I need to defend you? Why do I have to play Dirk the Daring to your Princess Daphne all of a sudden? I may not always agree with you, sure, but I’m pretty sure you don’t need me to be your white knight and save you from whatever “trouble” you’re in.
Jesus, Slowpoke. If I don’t do anything, I’m not a good person for failing to act; if I do something, I’m not a good person for going “too far”. What the fuck do you expect me to do when the choice is, metaphorically, a pitchfork up my ass or a pitchfork through my gut?
If you're going to hold me to a standard, is it very unfair for me to do the same to you?
I'm not a damsel in distress(??? I don't get that reference), but if i am being piled on and say "even one of your team knows this is true, he can confirm," and you do know it's true, and you can confirm, but you say you're gonna stay out of it just to avoid incidentally standing up for me, and then don't even stay out of it , can you see where that's poor behavior?
Dude, I don’t keep dossiers on the +4 regulars. I don’t know anything about most of you guys, really. (Other than Twister being a furfag.) I'll try to do at least a cursory job of that in the future, but I can’t make promises. And it’s not as if /pol/ threads haven’t had mods/janitors/me posting about “hey, cut out all the personal attack shit”. I can’t help it if nobody listens. You’ll have to get an actual mod to help with that—and even then, I’m not sure that’d help.
So yeah, hold me to a standard, but just remember that I come here basically as an excuse for socialization, not to make long-term friends or whatever.
Fuck man, I'm meant to be studying for three essays tomorrow but this shit is gold.
GET BACK TO WORK OR YOU’RE FIRED
Normal people ask you to admit you're wrong and apologize because normal people want to move past the problem. SJWs ask you to admit you're wrong and apologize so they can use that as ammunition against you in vitriolic attacks forever. This is how they work, NEVER apologize to them in the future.
>Yes, it’s awful that anons here treat you like shit, and if I weren’t, y’know, an active participant in the thread, I’d do something about it.
You've done something about it in the past.
Are you already forgetting you deleted my posts that disagreed with you a few months back, deleted some gay dudes posts, and even deleted someones entire thread for not being "politically correct"?
But NOW, at THIS moment as you're talking to poke, is when you grow an ethical code, a code that prevents you from even telling the abusive guy ITT he's doing something wrong? GTFO with this blatant bullshit, no one buying what you're selling.
Slowpoke I hope you're realizing how vile these people are.
There's no good inner core to their personality, it's bullshit no matter how deep you dig, you'll just get your arm soiled to the elbows by trying to find their decency.
To swing this back towards actual political discussion: former CIA agent and current “literally who?” Evan McMullin is expected to announce today his candidacy for President; since he’ll be running as an independent conservative, his move is considered a direct shot at the GOP’s choice for POTUS candidate.
>You've done something about it in the past.
Yes, I did. I was summarily smacked down for it by Moose and warned against doing it again. When the site’s highest-of-the-higher-ups tells me to knock shit off, I tend to listen.
>even deleted someones entire thread for not being "politically correct"
Two, actually! Notice how we have two /pol/ threads right now? I deleted two separate threads, each with the OP of this thread and the other /pol/ thread. “This” thread, because of the antagonistic OP image (it’s apparently fine to put Trump in the crosshairs but people probably would’ve thrown a fit if it was Hillary); “that” thread, because it made no attempt at connecting with other /pol/ threads (and not, as it was assumed, because I disagreed with that OP’s politics). When everyone got pissed at me for trying to find some sort of middle ground, I deleted that attempt and let the other two threads be remade without interference. I fucked up and I won’t make the same mistake twice.
And yes, I am a vile person. I’m a horrible piece of shit. Didn’t you get the memo?
>to swing back towards actual political discussion
>spends an entire post engaging in diatribe
I shouldn't be reading this shit while high, it's too funny.
>trying to swing back to topic
>with his trip on
>whining about trips/names on plus4
Go back to 4chan
I'm not whining, I'm just pointing out that using his identity while trying to defuse a problem just doesn't work.
source: last twenty posts
>Trips and names are for artists, not autists. This isn't oldplus4
Trips are for whoever, this is plus4, nearly dead though it may be.
All the artists left from here.
We have one rabid SJW puppy, one troll playing with the puppy, Mr. Stone, Slowpoke and three or four of us normies who rarely post. Occasionally another trip might float by in another thread.
So around 10 people in total, all things considered.
Which is why it's hilarious when the rabid puppy tries to pretend like he's a crowd.
Well, for what this is worth: maybe cool it with the personal attacks and insults, please?
The guy you're protecting called Slowpoke a misogynist and worse things. These are serious accusations, yet here you are protecting this same guy from getting merely insulted. Are we expected to believe you aren't corrupt as fuck?
Your bias is showing.
>Are we expected to believe you aren't corrupt as fuck?
I expect nothing. Your beliefs are your own. Do with them what you wish.
What “retardation”? I said that if I weren’t an active participant in this thread, I’d do something about all the insults and shitflinging. “Doing something”, in this case, would mean “deleting posts”. And since I was warned by the site’s overlords about the whole “deleting posts in threads you’re active in” thing, I can’t do anything but hand out requests for “stop being an asshole”. I don’t have the power or authority to back those requests up. If I did, we’d be having a whole different conversation.
And it’d probably be related to politics instead of your obsession with how I act on a barely-there imageboard.
I'll take that as tacit admission that you aren't qualified for the janitor post.
All slowpoke is asking you to do is tell the other guy to cut it out. Not to slander poke, not to make fun of his dead friends, not to attack him in every thread. You won't even tell your friend to stop. And here you are protecting him and even reporting people who insult him.
I wasn’t aware that I was supposed to be Slowpoke’s personal guardian/defender/white knight.
But hey, what the fuck does it matter? It’s not as if my asking y’all to cut out all the personal attacks—or the site overlords doing the same thing—is actually going to stop you. Whether it’s me, Slowpoke, Twister, or whatever other anons still inhabit this site, you’re going to fling shit at someone. So hey, fling it at me. I’m a lazy, narcissistic, attentionwhoring furfaggot who occasionally ventures into doing something productive and has suicidal thoughts at least once a month. You won’t be doing anything to me that I haven’t already done to myself—and to a worse degree, might I add.
>I wasn’t aware that I was supposed to be Slowpoke’s personal guardian/defender/white knight.
I wasn’t aware that you were supposed to be SJW puppys personal guardian/defender/white knight.
You…you actually think I have friends? …why?
>The guy you're protecting called Slowpoke a misogynist
And would do so again, primarily as he is one, much like yourself.
They imitate their master, it's just random nonsense all day every day. Again, the dude trying to pedal the "Hillary had an Iranian scientist executed" madness couldn't even keep his story straight WITHIN ONE POST.
I've got a bet going on whether the prevailing stance they'll take up when they get crushed in November will be 'YOU WILL REGRET THIS" or "RIGGED, RIGGED, RIGGED!"
>I've got a bet going on whether the prevailing stance they'll take up when they get crushed in November will be 'YOU WILL REGRET THIS" or "RIGGED, RIGGED, RIGGED!"
The answer, most likely, will be "KILL, KILL, KILL!"
>reporting people for abuse
>then abusing people
You two don't deserve a report button.
but seriously, I wouldn't have picked that many. 20% (assuming the statistics scale) of his voters are a shitton of Americans.
100% of Hillary Clinton protects rapists, funds ISIS, and receives donations from states that practiced slavery legally until 1970, when we made them stop.
But they still do it on the down low.
I can't tell if this is ironic trolling or serious trolling. It's too funny to delete, so you guys are going to have to deal with it.
Is this your first time looking at the thread?
I'm afraid I don't have time right now to find that wikileaks link, but even if you are stating facts, the phrasing of that comment just makes me laugh anyway.
However, I will retract my first comment.
Apart from looking at the last three posts every-so-often and shit in the report queue, yes. I was the person who suggested politics should be removed from SYM, so naturally I don't frequent politics threads.
>I'm afraid I don't have time right now to find that wikileaks link, but even if you are stating facts, the phrasing of that comment just makes me laugh anyway.
He's an alt-righter spouting randomized garbage.
If by randomized you mean suspiciously tied to solid evidence.
Nah, by randomized I pretty much mean randomized.
Kudos on getting nailed by the staff though.
I'm sure by randomized you mean completely correct and reflective of reality.
>Kudos on getting nailed by the staff though.
Wut? This is news to me, my anus is as virginal and tight as it was this morning.
Well that comes from the shitty PPG reboot, so…
Wait no that’s from the original show, 4:3 aspect ratio. God I’m fucking blind as fuck tonight.
Interesting read... shame that the guy who wrote it also did time for expenses bullshit
Most registered Republicans still doubt Obama's citizenship
Well, this is bullshit.
It's the salvation of labor.
Meanwhile, Corbynites attempt to leverage the literal Trotskyists to save him
Labor will hemorrhage even more votes, the balance of the base will go to some other party.
Either way it seems the left in britain will be fractured and incapable of gaining majority for the foreseeable future.
>people in charge of a political party denying about 130,000 new members the chance to vote in a leadership election by literally changing the rules s they can get yet another Blairite tossbag in charge
And wow, some left-wing extremist nobody's given a shit about for decades thinks he'll get back in the Labour Party if Corbyn wins. How is that even close to what you're claiming? How is this "story" anything but yet another attempt by the mainstream media to make Corbyn look like a baby-eating monster again?
Well, a lot of Corbyn supporters have pointed out that having a Blairite tossbag in charge is what lost them the last general election, so getting another one will just reinforce the image of Labour as "Diet Tories". Maybe if Corbyn wins the challenge (which is still a possibility, if not the dead cert it was 24 hours ago) then it might be that the rest of the Labour MPs will stop talking to journalists about how many babies Jeremy eats and actually do their fucking job for a change.
But yeah, shit's ridiculous. At least UKIP is tearing itself to pieces now that Farage has revealed himself as the shitty coward he is.
Yet another lawsuit to try and scupper Brexit.
Holy fucking shit. Just…holy fucking shit.
>don't just vote on the 8th, go and look around other polling places, make sure its 100% fine.
Isn't that part of voting rights? Making sure the process is fair isn't a problem, and it's definitely not what the article is trying to make it out to be.
>Holy fucking shit. Just…holy fucking shit.
Oh lol this just blows your mind right, you've never seen anything quite this bad before. Ignore Bernie voter suppression by Hillary, or Obamas black panther goons intimidating voters.
>Isn't that part of voting rights?
People working at the polls and law enforcement officials—local, state, and federal—do that job. Anyone outside of those groups who tries to do that job can be seen as attempting to intimidate people into voting a specific way (or into not voting at all).
But let’s assume, for a moment, that voter fraud of any kind is a rampant problem (it isn’t). The problem with thinking an election the size of the POTUS election can be rigged—in this country, at least—lies in the size of such a conspiracy. If you were talking about a small-town local election for mayor or sheriff or whatever, I could believe in such an election being rigged; a small number of people could potentially pull something like that off. But we’re talking about an election with millions of voters scattered all over the country. Any conspiracy to rig an election of that size would require thousands of people—think polling station workers, law enforcement, election officials, federal judges, the goddamned Electoral College—working in tandem with each other to pull off the scheme. A conspiracy of that size could not exist without its existence becoming public knowledge sooner or later, either through one of the conspirators leaking information (accidentally or otherwise) or outside sources investigating claims of rigging/fraud/whatever.
Maybe some form of voter intimidation happens at a handful of polling stations around the country. I can believe that, sure. But you’d have to prove such intimidation is widespread—or that people are actually trying to commit voter fraud on a level that would rig an election the size of the American POTUS election—to make me think the problem requires Trump-supporting brownshirts going around polling stations on his behalf and “checking up on things”. Since you stand zero chance of doing that, maybe you should rethink supporting the idea of vigilante “vote enforcers”.
>Ignore Bernie voter suppression by Hillary, or Obamas black panther goons intimidating voters.
Neither of those exist so happily.
>video evidence inadmissible
>picture evidence inadmissible
>witness statements inadmissible
Are you Stone?
You didn't post any of these things so
And no, a picture of two black dudes, devoid of context, isn't picture evidence so spare us that particular bit of whining
For alt-right barbarians, the mere existence of non-whites is an evil unto itself
They're wearing cool jackets. Only organized military patrols can cooridnate the wearing of cool jackets.
I wonder if Obama picked Garland just to fuck up the republicans.
Like the old adage, "Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves."
Like, Fox news being right about how unreasonable the senate right is.
Because they look so increasingly fucking stupid.
Yeah, he pretty much gave the Senate a giant “fuck you” with than nomination. It was a genius trap, really.
And in the end Garland is probably still getting the seat. It's hilarious really.
>go to iTunes store
>see this on the front page
Probably still better than Twilight.
Note #2 is a must-read on the subject of Trump and “voter fraud”.
Breitbart editors see polls saying “Trump is going to lose”. Breitbart editors decide to run their own poll. The Breitbart poll says “Trump is going to lose.”
>Looking back, it seems that O.J. Simpson got away with not just murder, but also domestic violence. The sexual harassment allegations Anita Hill made about Judge Clarence Thomas would likely derail a Supreme Court nomination today — and the accuser wouldn’t be brushed aside as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.” In the ’90s, the media called Monica Lewinsky a “tramp”; now, she’s a celebrated anti-bullying spokeswoman. Bill Cosby is no longer “America’s Dad” but a “probable sexual predator.”
>Juanita Broaddrick seems primed for the same modern reassessment. But the political implications of her claims are too disastrous for liberal politicians and pundits — the people who typically support self-declared rape survivors — to rally around her, especially this close to election day. That means only Clinton-hating conservatives are visibly incensed by her claims, and the more that they amplify Broaddrick’s story, the more skeptical progressives become.
I'm just going to leave this here
>a picture of two black dudes, devoid of context, isn't picture evidence so spare us that particular bit of whining
>devoid of context
I just realized you're probably too young to remember Obamas first election.
Breitbart is the pro-Cruz #nevertrump crowd, only two or three authors are pro trump (milo, that bearded guy...).
So what you're saying is that no, you don't have anything, and when confronted on how you have nothing, can only retreat while yelling insults over your shoulder.
>I just realized you're probably too young to remember Obamas first election.
I'm not. I voted for Obama. And while I heard rumblings about "BLACK PANTHERS HELPED STEAL THE ELECTION", nothing substantial or worthwhile ever came from those accusations.
You're both either too young, you're focused on a single brand of media that confirms your biases, or you're just plain stupid.
Or we don't live in Philly and thus don't care about a local Philly incident?
>You're both either too young
I love when alt-righters break this out because they themselves almost never break 25.
As far as the NBPs go, please point to the public speech in which Obama suggested they perform these actions, and also to these cases across the country, then you will have a liberal equivalent to what Trump was calling for. Until then, this is just more of your nattering.
Enjoy getting smashed in November, by the way.
Well I’m 35 and I don’t read garbage like Breitbart. Jury’s still out on the last one, tho’.
But hey, maybe you can answer something for me: How does that one single solitary instance of alleged voter intimidation (nothing was ever proven in court) in one city within the entirety of the United States justify Trumpian brownshirts doing in multiple cities across the nation what the NBPs only did in Philadelphia? (I don’t see anything that says the NBPP carried out any other such actions in any other city in the US during that election. And the group didn’t even carry out the acts in Philly on the direct and explicit orders—or the “sarcastic” implication—of Barack Obama.)
>then you will have a liberal equivalent to what Trump was calling for
No I wouldn't because Trump didn't tell people to go to election booths armed, and they still haven't gone to election booths armed.
>nothing was ever proven in court
And if you read up on this process it's heavily implied that Holder, an Obama apointee, prevented prosecution from proceeding. They didn't go to trial and have the evidence be insufficient or something, the trials were cancelled under conditions shady enough to warrant investigation by USCCR.
Just like Holder got protected by declaring evidence against him "top secret", or how Hillary got protected by the head of the FBI dropping charges because she "wasnt aware she was breaking the law".
This doesn't bother you?
>No I wouldn't because Trump didn't tell people to go to election booths armed
Yes, he merely "jokingly" implied they should. Obama on the other hand did neither, because he's, you know, not insane.
>and they still haven't gone to election booths armed
The elections have neither come, nor gone.
On the european scene, it's rumoured that Nigel Farage is applying for German citizenship.
In less hilarious news, it seems that British police have decided to prove that it's not just American cops who can kill black people for no damn reason.
>Trump didn't tell people to go to election booths armed
Trump requested people voting for him to go check on other polling stations to make sure things weren’t somehow being “rigged”. (He can say he was joking, but he can say that about any offensive thing he says. Doesn’t make it true.) He doesn’t have to give orders about being armed; given the “Second Amendment people” rhetoric and his claims that “Crooked Hillary” will “rig” the election (which is impossible to do in practical terms), a not-zero number of Trump followers would likely do their “job” as “poll observers” with some form of weapon in tow. If the NBPs in Philly were supposedly intimidating voters by having a billy club with them, how do you think the average voter will feel if they see people carrying guns and wearing some form of “Trump Poll Observer” signage?
Oh, and if you can show me how Obama said or did anything comparable to what Trump said, I’d love to see the evidence.
>they still haven't gone to election booths armed
It is less than three months until Election Day. And Trump only recently made those remarks about poll observers. (I should note, for your benefit, that states already employ official poll observers, so Trump supporters don’t need to “volunteer” their services—especially on behalf of Trump.)
>it's heavily implied that Holder, an Obama apointee, prevented prosecution from proceeding
>This doesn't bother you?
I’m not surprised by it, if that’s what you mean. Sure, it’s bothersome in a sense that we’ll never know “the truth”, but on a larger scale, it doesn’t mean shit. Even if the NBPs meant to intimidate people into voting for Obama (or not voting at all), it happened in one city. One. The amount of people they may have intimidated would be insignificant in terms of “swaying the election”, and their actions did not appear to be part of a wider national movement that meant to “rig” the election.
Should they have been prosecuted? Sure. Am I bothered by the lack of a trial? Yeah. Am I going to lose sleep over the idea that the election would’ve ended differently if a couple of black guys in Philly hadn’t shown up at one polling station? Not really, because the idea is insane.
On the other hand, it isn’t out of the question to believe Trump’s most fanatic supporters will show up at polling stations—with or without weapons—and attempt to intimidate voters. Given how those supporters have acted in the past, why shouldn’t I think it could happen?
>Donald Trump tapped him as his new campaign manager, Breitbart News CEO Stephen Bannon
HA HA HA!
B-b-but Breitbart is #NeverTrump! Biased media, biased media!
You're actually right, everyone who disagrees with you is secretly on the same page.
Remember, you can't trust anyone, you have to fight everyone at the same time.
Your intense fury over the Pig Lord's inability to gain any traction with the general public, and your favorite Alt-Right platform ruining your denial method, is noted and duly mocked.
Dude, why the hell did you tell him that? Now he knows about the conspiracy.
Yeah Trump will never win, quit worrying about him he's already been defeated.
Even the sources on your side of the fence can't squeeze out a victory calculation. Your message, centered around hatred, doesn't catch outside of the primaries.
November will come, November will go, and you'll be trapped by the Democrats for 4 more years. We'll get our judges, and our justice.
It's ok he's a clown just forget about it.
Trump is actually Lex Luthor.
That last update, though. Holy fucking shit.
He has an insignificant penis, Hillarys penis is huge in comparison. Her shlong is gargantuan in fact. Republican penises are tiny, so so small compared to superior Democrat penises. This is why Republicans are insecure and cling to guns and religion, because they lack virility. Democrat penises are huge and they are secure in their sexuality, which is why Democrats can suck a cock and not feel gay about it. Trump is a classic small cocked Republican, there's no use worrying about Trump, he won't accomplish anything
>That last update, though. Holy fucking shit.
Agreed. That might be the best thing to come of this whole thing.
This guy’s tweets about tonight’s Trump rally are fucking terrifying.
No. For starters, I’m not a fucking journalist.
That guys a journalist? I thought he was a political commentator.
Whatever. Point is, that ain’t my Twitter. I have an ego, but not that much of one.
You're just trying to sell us chinpokomon aren't you?!
Apparently a heap of people were asking why they hadn't made a pokemon go episode, and they kept saying that they already did 15 years ago.
>That last update, though. Holy fucking shit.
I can't get over stone being impressed by a junior high insult.
If I’m your obsession, you need a new one.
MEANWHILE, IN KANGAROOLAND
Heaps of people are pissed because the government is forcing the Australian Bureau of Statistics to essentially deanonymise the census. Also, the website was down.
Pretty sure the check’s here: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/johnwright/trump_gives_100k_to_church_led_by_anti_gay_hate_group_leader_tony_perkins
Got a link to the actual poll, or just an image you ganked off social media?
It's a real poll, they're just desperately clinging to it.
this is how ridiculous hillary has become, she's opening a jar of pickles to prove she doesnt have brain damage.
>Holy fucking shit. Just…holy fucking shit.
Are you saying "holy fucking shit" because of the sheer shock from the fact that you'll have to work harder to cheat now?
Ooooooh and her official website having an ad hiring hackers to help rig voting machines.
Vid is Susan Bernman, breaking the law.
Did you go on vacation or something and now you're trying to make up for lost time?
Did she actually ask for someone to vote for Clinton? Did she attempt to intimidate someone into voting for Clinton? If not, she didn’t actually break the law—unless you’re implying that someone with a partisan bias, one way or the other, can’t register voters. And if you’re implying that, why aren’t people out looking for registrars with a pro-Trump bias?
…oh, right, the only people who think voting fraud is a big enough problem to sway the POTUS election have a pro-Trump bias.
>you'll have to work harder to cheat
Isn’t in-person voter fraud so damn rare that it accounts for less than one percent of one percent of any actual voting in a given POTUS election? (And even if the registrar puts you down as registered for the “wrong” party, that doesn’t make a vote for the “right” party illegal.)
Lemme break this down for you. Assume voter turnout at this year’s POTUS election hits 50%. I’ll round that out to, let’s say, 150 million votes. To rig the election for an assured victory, Hillary Clinton, her political allies, and her supporters would need to change enough votes out of those 150 million in a way that hands the right states—that is, the ones with the most electoral votes—to her. To do that, they would have to coordinate on a campaign to rig a state’s votes; to do that, they would have to rig votes in enough cities/counties to sway the results in Clinton’s favor. And they’d have to carry out this conspiracy under a veil of secrecy or else they’ll spend time in prison.
Do you now realize, anon, how much actual work would be necessary to rig the POTUS election—and how many people would have to be in on the conspiracy to do so, thus increasing the chances of the conspiracy being discovered? It would be practically impossible, on a “popular vote” level, to rig this election.
And besides, someone can lose the popular vote and still win the election. That Electoral College thing is a bitch.
I have a job and a life, puppy. Also events/this website don't always interest me.
Aaah what I wouldn't pay to be young, to still believe in socialism and santa again.
She solicited a vote against trump, spoke to voters on how they should vote against trump, and distributed anti-trump stickers. She broke a), b) and c) of that rule.
As for the scale of electoral fraud, in 2000 Bush won on a Utahs worth of electoral votes, and the total vote margin between Bush and Gore was 543,895 in favor of Gore (~11000 per state). Given that states routinely find voter fraud numbers in the 20-40 thousand(1), your pretensions to negligibility of voter fraud are laughable. Only individual electoral fraud is rare, as in a single person using different names, or double ballots. Mass electoral fraud is anything but rare, it just gets labeled as "human error" by the authorities and receives zero investigative attention.
And may I comment how fucking pro-establishment the left has become, that you're literally parroting propaganda created for the purpose of assuring the average citizen that he has an element of control.
1. The audit further identified 13,416 deceased voters on voter rolls in Oct. 13. <...> A total of 35,750 voters with matching first and last names and date of birth were registered in North Carolina and another state, and voted in both states in the 2012 general election. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/04/03/oh-my-evidence-of-massive-voter-fraud-in-north-carolina-n1818137
>you're literally parroting propaganda created for the purpose of assuring the average citizen that he has an element of control.
Oh well if we have no control it must not matter how we vote then! Guess I'll ingratiate myself to the Clinton death squads with a Democratic vote this November. You know, just to be safe.
Your busy schedule hasn't impeded your acquisition of the hottest, latest/pol/ macros I notice.
Also neither that post, nor any post recently, made the slightest reference to socialism, but I guess your 2 decades of life have caused the memory to start slipping.
>1. The audit further identified 13,416 deceased voters on voter rolls in Oct. 13. <...> A total of 35,750 voters with matching first and last names and date of birth were registered in North Carolina and another state, and voted in both states in the 2012 general election. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/04/03/oh-my-evidence-of-massive-voter-fraud-in-north-carolina-n1818137
That's evidence of *election fraud*, not *voter fraud*. Voter ID laws don't help combat election fraud, they help combat voter fraud, and there's still no evidence that voter fraud actually happens.
>Voter ID laws don't help combat election fraud
What does this have to do with anything? We're not talking about voter ID laws, we're talking about citizens making sure people running the election aren't being biased.
Do you want to talk about voter ID laws instead?
That's even MORE retarded then, because how are citizens going to accomplish anything there? Unless they're actually looking over the officials' shoulders while they're tabulating results, they can't do anything other than be silent, looming threats to say "Hey, if you don't vote the right way, we're going to punish you for not agreeing with us."
>"Hey, if you don't vote the right way, we're going to punish you for not agreeing with us."
Well yeah, that's the message we want to send to those attempting to obstruct the people's will by supporting Clinton.
And if Trump-supporting “poll observers” show up to polling stations, you’ll decry any attempts by those people to intimidate voters into voting “the right way”, correct?
You can't intimidate people into voting for Trump, they already want to vote for Trump, you can only reassure them that they'll be protected by clintonazis
>You can't intimidate people into voting for Trump
You can intimidate people into not voting, which is just as bad as intimidation in favor of a specific candidate. So, will you decry any Trump supporters who try to act as unofficial “poll observers” and intimidate voters into either voting for Trump or not voting at all—regardless of whether their intent is to actually commit an act of intimidation?
>how are citizens going to accomplish anything there?
There's literally a video of a Trump supporter outing one of the election organizers bias just A FEW POSTS ABOVE YOURS. You aren't even trying anymore.
Correct. And if I'm present I'll even slap some sense into any Trump supporter that tries that.
Why are you saying "correct?" in such a passive aggressive bitchy manner, is there any other option I could possibly take? Do you think because you have zero fucking ethics, everyone around you is just as morally corrupt?
>Why are you saying "correct?"
Because I didn’t want to use “right” twice in such close proximity. Wasn’t meant as a passive-aggressive potshot at you, I swear. (Ah, the perils of attempting clarity.)
>There's literally a video of a Trump supporter outing one of the election organizers bias
Damn that citizen, expressing her political views.
Soooo.... is anyone going to explain this?
One released emails shows she's taking Modafnil, a brain damage medication.
There's no escaping the truth that the extremist left are voting for someone with brain damage.
She's not allowed to do that as an election organizer you mong.
>is anyone going to explain this?
What's to explain? …oh, you mean the term “hackathon”? Just because some dumbass used the term in the site’s source code as part of a stealth ad for tech-related jobs within the campaign doesn’t mean the campaign is advocating for (or planning on pulling off) pro-Clinton hacking of voting machines. If you could prove otherwise, well, “now” would be the perfect fucking time to do it.
>She's not allowed to do that as an election organizer you mong.
She actually is absolutely allowed to do so, just not on election day.
>Your unwavering belief is really cute
Your lack of evidence that backs up the implication of Clinton’s campaign actively trying to hack voting machines is unsurprising.
Shes literally hiring hackers for a "hackathon" on election day, that is called circumstantial evidence. Hillary is holding a bleeding knife and you're like "thats just catsup bro shes having a meal I DONT SEE EVIDENCE".
Well seeing evidence is partly your responsibility, if you refuse to notice it, or process it in your brain, that's on YOU.
Aka "not evidence"
>Shes literally hiring hackers for a "hackathon" on election day
>the call to hackers for a hackathon on election day
Bizarre results being what, in your mind? Clinton winning at all? Are you actually straight up playing the "any loss by us must cheating" card? I thought you were trying to pretend Trump didn't try that.
That you have to make such prefaces rather indicates you have no such intention.
>Citation is a few pictures above
I see nothing in either that bit of code, or at the URL provided therein, that counts as an explicit call for voting machine hackers to work for Clinton, either on or before Election Day. The code’s reference to an “18-month hackathon” most likely refers to the campaign itself—go back 18 months from Election Day and you’d hit May 2015, and Clinton formally announced her campaign in April 2015. “Hackathon”, aside from being a very poor word choice in this case, most likely refers to the campaign’s usage of technology and social media as popular methods of getting its message out. You don’t have any evidence that explicitly ties the Clinton campaign (or Clinton herself) to any form of voting machine hacking, and what you think you have is, under the most generous of definitions, circumstancial. If you had any such evidence, you wouldn’t be sharing it on fucking plus4chan, of all places.
>If she actually manages to win without illegal immigrants or dead people voting for her, or her equally brain dead fanbase voting for her twice, I'll concede graciously and go into my bunker for the next four years.
No, you won’t. You really won’t. Because if she wins, you’ll spend the next four years arguing that Hillary rigged the election and everyone was too blinded by Donald Trump running the worst GOP presidential campaign in modern history to care. You’ll look for any minor irregularity in voting rolls or voting numbers, screencap them, and use MSPaint to circle them in red text before sending the image off to Breitbart and Alt-Right Twitter. You’ll spend every waking moment waiting for Hillary to make a single fuck-up, no matter how small, so you can jump and point and shout about how you were right in regards to her being unqualified for President. You will do all those things and more because you cannot resist doing those things.
If you could, you wouldn’t be posting here.